[AccessD] Upgrade Access to SQL Server

 As David said, temp tables are the way to go.

 But a word of caution; these local tables may be there for performance
reasons. Often you are better off to pull data into a local table and then
report off that rather then going against SQL. That may be why these tables
were put there in the first place other then making sure the data remained
separate from other users.

Jim. 

-----Original Message-----
From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
[mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of John W Colby
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 02:07 PM
To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
Subject: [AccessD] Upgrade Access to SQL Server

I am being asked to upgrade Access FEs which have quite complex SQL Server
BE tables, plus 
(apparently) some data from those tables pulled down to the FE and stored
there over time as the 
user processes the data in those local FE tables.  They want to move those
local tables to SQL Server.

My question is, is there an accepted method for providing this kind of table
out in SQL Server?  IOW 
the structure is there, but the data in the table (as seen from the FE )
belongs to that instance of 
the FE.

We place tables local to the FE exactly for this purpose, to make it local
to that specific instance 
of the FE, on that specific user, on that specific machine.

It seems that if I am going to do this in SQL Server then I will need to add
a "machine ID" kind of 
FK in the tables as I upsize them to SQL Server, then in the Access
Application somehow get filtered 
datasets.  This sounds ugly.

-- 
John W. Colby

Reality is what refuses to go away
when you do not believe in it
-- 
AccessD mailing list
AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com